Operation Lantana - Police Integrity Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

24 future Taking of Tobacco 2.115 In the call between Battal and LP1 on 17 October 2008 previously referred to 296 , Battal told LP1 about having “told ‘em about the big warehouse one” immediately after the sentence which he had previously accepted in his evidence was a reference to the payment to Hijazi. He said he could not recall who he was talking about when he used the term “‘em” there. 297 He said that he believed it was Masri who had told him about the warehouse in question. 298 Battal denied he was presenting this issue as his idea, saying instead that he was seeking LP1’s approval 299 and the gathering of such information was on LP1’s instructions. 300 Battal conceded, however: “…If he’s happy to do it and he wants to go ahead with it… I was happy with it …” 301 2.116 He subsequently qualified this enthusiasm by saying that the proposal was “all rumours”, with nothing confirmed 302 and that whether he would have ultimately joined in depended “on (what he was feeling at) the (relevant) time”. 303 Possession of an unlicensed firearm 2.117 In a lawfully intercepted telephone call between Battal and LP1 which occurred on 11 December 2008 304 , Battal mentioned a “thing that I got from Adelaide”. 305 LP1 told the Commission that he believed that this was a reference to a firearm that Battal had previously told him that he purchased in Adelaide. 306 2.118 When Battal was asked about that reference to the “thing”, he said that he did not get a firearm from Adelaide. 307 He said, however, that he could not recall, what the “thing” he was referring to actually was. 308 2.119 During the execution of a search warrant by Commission officers at Battal’s home on 28 January 2009 a loaded .357 calibre Smith and Wesson hand gun was located in a safe at the premises. 2.120 In his evidence before the Commission, Battal said that he had bought the firearm “a couple of months ago” in Sydney for $2000. 309 He said that he had bought the firearm “from friends” for “protection”. 310 2.121 When asked whether he possessed a licence for the firearm Battal effectively answered in the negative, saying that he had a firearms licence previously but that it had expired “last year [2008], I think, or the year before”. 311 296 PIC Exhibit 8 297 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 16 February 2009, p.100 298 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 16 February 2009, p.101 299 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 16 February 2009, p.101 300 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 16 February 2009, p.102 301 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 16 February 2009, p.103 302 ibid 303 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 16 February 2009, p.104 304 PIC Exhibits 15 (transcript) and 16 (audio) 305 PIC Exhibit 15 at p.5 306 PIC Transcript, LP1, 17 February 2009, p.168 307 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 17 February 2009, pp.174; 176 308 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 17 February 2009, p.176 309 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 17 February 2009, p.176 310 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 17 February 2009, pp.175-176 311 PIC Transcript, N M Battal, 17 February 2009, p.175 POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION – REPORT TO PARLIAMENT - OPERATION LANTANA
3. ASSESSMENTS AND OPINIONS Assessing witness credit – LP1 and Battal 3.1 As a threshold issue and as the discussion of the evidence in Chapter 2 of this Report indicates, there are significant differences in the evidence given by each of the witnesses called during the public hearing on many of the key incidents examined during the hearing and none more so than those which emerged in the evidence given by LP1 and Battal. Having assessed their respective evidence and having regard to the manner in which they gave their evidence the Commission is satisfied that where there are differences in the evidence of LP1 and Battal in particular, the evidence given by LP1 is generally to be preferred to that of Battal. That does not mean however that the Commission accepts everything that LP1 said in his evidence where it is contradicted or denied by Battal or the other witnesses. 3.2 LP1 admitted to serious misconduct not only involving the Merrylands tobacconists and the Cabramatta couple, but to the other incidents as detailed in Chapter 2 of this Report. It is difficult to conceive of a motive for him doing so unless those incidents occurred as he related them. In addition, he gave his evidence in a candid and considered way consistent with someone who was doing his best to assist the Commission with its inquiry. Given the serious wrongdoing LP1 admitted to however, it also follows that his evidence needs to be approached and assessed with some caution. Nonetheless, as a general assessment, the Commission is satisfied that LP1 presented as a reliable witness. While the question of how a previously honest police officer managed to involve himself in such serious misconduct, which he freely admitted to, was not completely explained, he appeared to have realised at least by the time he gave his evidence that it was intrinsically wrong and appeared to genuinely regret his conduct. 3.3 Battal, on the other hand, presented as a less than impressive witness and made admissions only to the ‘first’ Merrylands incident, to the incident involving the Cabramatta couple, and to a version of the events involving Baroudi as referred to in Chapter 2 of this Report. Even when he denied certain matters put to him the force of his denial was less than resolute and comprehensive. 3.4 In respect of the Cabramatta couple, not unlike many initially recalcitrant witnesses who appear before the Commission, Battal admitted his involvement only after he became aware of evidence other than that of LP1 (primarily, electronic surveillance evidence). 3.5 In respect of the Merrylands incident, his admission was also belated, although, unusually in such circumstances, it did not follow as the result of confrontation with additional evidence, as appeared to be the case with his admissions in relation to the Cabramatta incident. 3.6 It cannot therefore objectively be seen as logical to have made the Merrylands admission whilst maintaining a denial to the other incidents, unless those other incidents did not occur, or he was mistaken about the additional evidence (other than that of LP1) likely to POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION – REPORT TO PARLIAMENT - OPERATION LANTANA 25
Page 1 and 2: Report to Parliament | October 2009
Page 3 and 4: The Hon Peter Primrose MLC Presiden
Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Operation Lantana
Page 7 and 8: tobacco was successfully carried ou
Page 9 and 10: The single exception to this relate
Page 11 and 12: • Steal from the person with circ
Page 13 and 14: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Operation Lanta
Page 15 and 16: As detailed later in this Report, h
Page 17 and 18: 2.6 In later evidence during the he
Page 19 and 20: 2.16 Battal then recounted to the C
Page 21 and 22: 2.26 The first such incident occurr
Page 23 and 24: Seizing and supplying drugs: The th
Page 25 and 26: 2.51 Battal gave evidence before th
Page 27 and 28: 2.61 Five minutes later Battal came
Page 29 and 30: 2.74 Battal agreed that he was at t
Page 31 and 32: 2.83 Battal agreed that in the call
Page 33 and 34: 2.97 When Masri was played an inter
Page 35: 2.109 In his evidence in relation t
Page 39 and 40: esult given the processes that bodi
Page 41 and 42: Seizing and Supplying Drugs: The th
Page 43 and 44: conversation, since both admit to a
Page 45 and 46: 4. AffECTED PERSONS Section 97 of t
Page 47 and 48: • Witness LP1 • Nasser Mohamad
Page 49 and 50: • Stealing from the person with c
Page 51 and 52: an attempt to do so, on the evidenc
Page 53 and 54: Accordingly in relation to these al
Page 55 and 56: 4.44 Similarly, on the evidence bef
Page 57 and 58: 5. APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 - ROLE AND
Page 59 and 60: make a statement as to whether or n
Page 61 and 62: In addition to the requirement to i
Page 63: Operation Lantana Report to Parliam

Operation Lantana - Police Integrity Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?